There are a number of columnists still churning material in the same manner as they did thirty years ago. They apparently believe that the information age's apogee occurred with the invention of the word processor and that this new fangled internet thing is a passing fad of limited utility. That is the kindest excuse I can find for this David Broder column which seeks to rather unartfully minimize McCarthy's transgression:

For the first few days after the action was announced, the agency and the White House let stand the impression that McCarthy had been a source for the stories about secret U.S. detention centers in Europe that won a Pulitzer Prize for The Post's Dana Priest on April 17. But when McCarthy's lawyer said she had no part in that transaction, CIA officials confirmed that was the case -- leaving it unclear exactly what she had done to bring down the punishment.

Had Broder been aware of existence of that marvelous invention known as the search engine, he might have discovered that even the New York Times was able to figure out what the CIA actually had to say:

A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."

Rather than characterize Broder as a compliant liar for a poor cause it is much kinder to think of him as a disingenuous fool overtaken by technology.

In either event, both pieces from the Democratic Party propaganda organs steer clear of McCarthy's startling generosity to the Kerry campaign as well as her connection's to 'Sandy the Burglar' and the VIPers nest in the CIA. Given the probable intellectual prowess of anyone foolish enough to continue to subscribe to either paper, leaving out such information is probably a very safe bet. A WaPo or NYT subscriber lives in a very special world and needs shelter from reality at all times.

4
comments:

She did very well by the Democrats; her loyalty is evidently to them (her "tribe") rather than to the nation in which she lives. I think this succinctly summarizes much of the opposition we hear incessantly.

I keep thinking about her conduct in light of the Rockefeller memo that Terrye highlighted. The last time the Democrats tried the sedition and subversion approach they were put out of power for seventy years. I'm hoping for a repeat.

I think everybody is getting a litt5e ahead of themselves. I have no doubt that Mary was consorting with reporters, but I am not sure about exactly what and how much of her role was simply to confirm what someone else had told the reporter. In other words, I think there is far more to this than we know we right now.

Does the CIA really have a spokesperson named Jennifer Millerwise Dyck?

Well, no matter. More important things to worry about...

For the first few days after the action was announced, the agency and the White House let stand the impression that McCarthy had been a source for the stories about secret U.S. detention centers in Europe that won a Pulitzer Prize for The Post's Dana Priest...

Ummm... who the heck created this "impression" that the White House "let stand"? Gaia, how I loathe these people.

Of course, it is understandable that they're all scrambling to downplay this. There were unauthorized contacts (note the plural) with reporters (not the plural).

Anyone think there's a list somewhere, in gummint hands, of who, when, where, and what topics?

Somewhere, Rove is sitting there thinking, "Man, if their heartrates jump to 220 over this, wait'll the third shoe drops. They're hearts will burst before they ever see shoe #9 hit the floor."